Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-18
RuDrema Court.

Texas and Pacific Railroad Company
VS.. W. N. Bu1russ; appeal from C4ss.
At former day OF this term this case
was affirmed on certificate. Appellant
made motion for rehearing and appel
lee in answer to the motion for rebesriDg
shows that this case was tried in Septem-
! Der, 1885, and appeal bond filed October
| 6, 1855, and was therefore returnsble to
the last Tyler term OF this court. Appel
| lee asks that the certificate for affirm
ance be dis missed and IL is so ordered.
| Certificate dismissed. Willie, G. j
T. B. Copelin vs.. G. Shuler; appeal
from Titus. This action of trespass to
try title was brought by appellee against
appellant to recover GIG acres Of land in
Titus county. On the trial objection was
made 10 the Introduction in evidence Of
power Of attorney and deed made IN
der its authority. At the time the instru-
ments were offered in evidence the deed
to- Bath had not been introduced. The
objectioniwas oyerruled. Held: Not err
ror. The court could not reject an in
strument because Of the existence of an
other before the latter was admitted in
evidence, snd its existence thereby estab-
lIshed. Appellee claims that the ap-
was in Hopkins at the time
ne made the power of attorney
TO Johnson; that the deed to Bath di-
vested Hopkins of all title to the half of
the league described by metes and bounds
in the deed; leaving the apparent title to
the other half still in him where it con-
tinued till atter her husband purchased
from johnson. Held: Ii this be true,
then Hopkins could still pass good
title to this remaining half to bona fide
purchaser without notice. There was no
such variance between the name OF R. M.
Hopkins and Richard M. Hopkins as to
avoid the acknowledgment TO the power
Of attorney. Further held: That the
record Of an instrument is proof that it
was filed for that purpose,
whether the file mark appears or not.
Objection was made to the introduction
in evidence OF 8 certain deed in the line
of sppeIlee's title, because there was
suit pending between appellants vendor
and appellee's vendor at the time the
deed was recorded. Held: This objec-
ton could not exclude the deed from the
Jury when there was no proof bsfore
them that auy suit had ever existed be-
tween Hopkins and appellants vendors.
Appellant offered in evidence the petition
and Judgment in the case Of Clark's Heirs
VS.. Hopkins (sppeIlee's vendor through
power of attorney given JohIson) and
the court refused to alo ~ it to be read
to the Jury. Held: No error. The per-
sons uRder whom the plaintiff Claims
were not parties to that suit
and the Judgment in it could
not effect the title OF appellee.
The record of bond to convey land
certificate made prior to its location, is
not authorized by law, and is not con-
structive notice of the obligee's title. 4
S. W. Rep, S46. No error. Affirmed.
Willie, G. j., Gaines, J., not sitting.
The City OF Austin VS.. The Austin Gas
light and Coal Co.; appeal from Travis
county. In pursuance Of an ordinance OF
the City Council, approved November 8,
1873, the Mayor OF the city of Austin
entered INTO contract with one Watts,
his assigns and successors, giving the
exclusive right to said Watts, his assigns
and successors, to erect and operate
gas works within the city limits;
Also that said Watts should furn-
ish gas to the city of Austin
at prices not to exceed 81 per thousand
cubic feet; also that all the rights, grants
and privileges contained in this ordi-
nance should continue for twenty years
after the first operation OF said gas works );
also that said Watts should furnish the
city of Austin with gas for public pur-
poses, as may De required by the City
Council ct per cent less than the
price charged to private customers;
and in consideration of this said deduc-
ton in price Of gas, the said gas WORKS
and all property OF every description pei
tanning to said gas works, were to- be
exempt from any and all taxation by
the said city, so long as the said watts,
his heirs and successors shall comply
with the provisions of this ordinance.
VISITS erected the gas WORKS and COM
piled with the contract until 1888, when
he conveyed the same, with all rights, ap-
purtsnsnces, etc, to the appellee. Since
May, 1884, the Mayor OF Austin has re-
fused 10 recognize the validity OF ssid con-